From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd



Why think of an original topic when I can just leech off somebody
else's ideas? This time, I'm riffing off a video I saw on YouTube.
This video, specifically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyl73XLJWhE

* * * *

To save yourself a watch, the presenter suggests that the reason
modern tabletop gamers don't like dungeon crawls is because the
current rules lack the time management that makes them fun.

Now, I can't argue this case, because:

a) I've no idea what 'modern tabletop gamers' like, and
b) I'm not familiar enough with 5E to say whether it does
or does not promote time-management in this way.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with his solution of having time being a
finite resource and using strict time-keeping to keep the players on
their toes and occupied. I don't necessarily disagree with it either;
I just don't think it's as cut-and-dried as he makes out.

Mostly, I just wanted to use his video as a springboard to... well, I
was going to say discuss D&D dungeoneering, but let's be honest; that
implies I've any sort of thesis to my comments. Mostly, I just wanted
to ramble about the game. ;-)


* * * *


I myself have never entirely been a fan of dungeon crawls, though...
and this has nothing to do with the rules. Honestly, it's just that
I've always thought of them as too mechanical and unrealistic for my
taste. These huge multi-leveled underground labyrinths filled with
countless monsters that can take days for a D&D strike team to clear?
My first thought is always: who the hell is building these things?
Digging through dirt and stone is HARD even with modern technology
(not to mention expensive). Ancient and Medieval diggers would do the
minimum necessary; they wouldn't be creating entire underworld cities
with superfluous chambers, not when it was so much easier just to
build it above ground.

[Yeah, sure; dwarves and Stone-to-mud spells and all that.
It makes it easier. But even taking that into consideration,
some of the sprawls featured in old AD&D modules beggared
the imagination.]

So I tended to use dungeons much more sparingly; they were infrequent
and --when encountered-- much smaller. They also were much more
focused; rarely were they of the "just go and find treasure" sort;
characters entered them with a very specific goal in mind: get the
magic gewgaw or locate the evil foozle. The dungeons themselves tended
to be more straight-forward; they weren't vast mazes because the
people who built them and lived in them did so with a purpose, and
thus kept to a fairly restricted area. Which meant the players didn't
have huge expanses to endlessly explore: in my adventures, they didn't
spend as much time underground.

Not to say the other way is wrong, or my way is better (or worse).
It's just the way I --because of my biases-- tended to create and
present dungeons. The crawl wasn't a major part of the campaign.

As such, we didn't suffer from as many problems as (apparently) modern
gamers have with crawls. To be sure, I also didn't let players rely so
heavily on skills and dice rolls when exploring so the problem of
repetitive "I search the square for traps" with every move was never
that big a problem.

[Of course, because of how I designed my dungeons, traps
weren't that common either. As mentioned, most dungeons
the players explored were places that other creatures lived
in... and even goblins don't want to have leap over
pit-traps every time they scamper between the sleeping chamber
and privies! Mechanical traps were fairly rare in my
adventures]

Anyway, I was much more hands on with that sort of stuff. Even if the
dice roll said you found a trap, I'd only give the players minimal
information about what the trap did. They'd have to deduce the what
and how of the mechanics of the snare, and how to bypass it.

I agree with the time management stuff, though. That was always an
important part of my campaigns, both above and below ground. I always
tried to create a reactive world, with monsters and NPCs always moving
about. I wasn't so strict with the time-keeping, however. I never went
so far as, say, insisting that ten turns after a party enters a
dungeon, kobold troop passes through room C, or even that the players
only have thirty turns before their presence in the dungeon is noted.
Heck, I was fairly lenient in timekeeping altogether; a search of one
room might take five minutes (half a turn) if its small and fairly
empty, but twenty minutes if it's bigger and more cluttered. When
asked about how long things were taking overall, I usually answered in
terms of half-hours or hours, and even that had some leeway to either
sides.

Which isn't to say time wasn't an important factor. There almost
always was some pressure that meant the players had to keep moving.
The idea that players could, for example, just hole up for eight hours
in the dungeon? Never happened in my campaigns. You just never got
that sort of freedom (get out of the dungeon first, you fools! But
before you criticize, remember that my dungeons were small). I kept
track of time, but it was always more organic rather than tightly tied
to some table.

[There were some exceptions. I remember one dungeon that
was hermetically sealed, so oxygen was an issue and I had
to keep close watch on the time. I hated that crawl for
that reason.]

Ultimately, like all tabletop RPGs, I don't think there's any one
answer on how to 'best' manage a crawl. It really all depends on your
players. Some people like the turn-by-turn management, others find it
too binding and mechanical. Some gamers love the crawl for what it is;
some (like myself!) can't stomach its unrealism. There's no
one-size-fits-all solution to the problem and --while I don't
necessarily disagree with the video-- do dislike his idea that 'if you
just follow these ten tips, everyone will love dungeon crawls!' idea.
Rather, listen to his ideas and pick the ones you think will best suit
your players' tastes. Because even the best-run crawls may go poorly
if your players just don't like dungeon crawls.


* * * *


How did you run your dungeon crawls? Was dungeoneering a major part of
your adventures?





--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 06/02/2026 18.04, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

How did you run your dungeon crawls? Was dungeoneering a major part of
your adventures?

When I did DM, we played a variety of different games, so I got a bit
inspired by a small independent game based on d20, it was inspired by
action movies where you have a story that is pushed forward and skipping
the boring stuff. So I had more of from action to action type of setup,
no matter if it was underdark, on top of the world on somewhere in between.
--
//Aho
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 23:40:59 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net>
wrote:

On 06/02/2026 18.04, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

How did you run your dungeon crawls? Was dungeoneering a major part of
your adventures?

When I did DM, we played a variety of different games, so I got a bit >inspired by a small independent game based on d20, it was inspired by
action movies where you have a story that is pushed forward and skipping
the boring stuff. So I had more of from action to action type of setup,
no matter if it was underdark, on top of the world on somewhere in between.

Cool, especially if your players enjoyed it.

Our campaigns were different. In many ways, they were more like those
survival video games (perhaps a bit less focus on crafting ;-) where
the journey was as much a part of the adventure as the actual
confrontation with the Big Evil Foozle at the end. Which was cool too;
every group has differing tastes. It's my main objection to the video,
which suggested that the solution to players not enjoying a dungeon
crawl was poor time management; I think it's broader than that. In
your example, your group was happier just to get to the big battle; in
ours, it was the journey that mattered. No amount of time-management
skills would have made dungeoneering more exciting to us.

Which isn't to say I completely disagreed with all of his thesis that
modern D&D relies to heavily on skills and dice-rolls... or at least
doesn't give DMs the tools and advice on how /not/ to do that. If your
game falls into the trap of "I roll a die to see if I succeed at
action X", it's going to be really hard to keep most players engaged

[Not all. Some people LIKE that style of gaming... and
that's cool too. But I think most games prefer more freedom
and interactivity]

and a lot of the tips in the video are telling DMs -one way or
another- to break out of that trend. Don't let your players rely
simply on their stats and skill blocks. Make them think and act it
out. If tight time management works for your group, use that.

It's sort of ironic that by giving players ever more skills and
powers, the new editions have only bound players more tightly and
given them less freedom. You hand players these vast skill lists and
say, "look at all these things you can do!" but the actual effect is
that it limits them to only trying the skills they have listed on
their character sheets. Old school systems, which were a lot less
specific, forced them to be more imaginative.

[Although... let's face it. We've all probably played
old-school D&D with some players who still couldn't imagine
their way out of a paper bag. It's never really the system
to blame as much as the people around the table, DM and
PCs alike]

But like I said, I never really cared for dungeons to begin with. The
too-tight corridors never really let the players fully explore their capabilities. You were trapped in tiny rooms, with limited
maneuverability and options. That's not to say I saw no use for the
things; sometimes you /want/ to limit the players that way. But I
always found the more open spaces on the surface a better playground.
The dungeons were a contrast to that, but only worked if used
sparingly. At least in our campaigns.

That said... we did do a few dungeon crawls. I remember I once did a
(pretty horrible and completely unfair) imitation of Tomb of
Horrors... although I very much told the players ahead of time that it
was intended as a death dungeon. The primary goal of that pit was for
the players to realize they COULDN'T win and get them to retreat
before they all died. ;-)

But that was the exception rather than the rule.








--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 07/02/2026 17.55, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 23:40:59 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net>
wrote:

On 06/02/2026 18.04, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

How did you run your dungeon crawls? Was dungeoneering a major part of
your adventures?

When I did DM, we played a variety of different games, so I got a bit
inspired by a small independent game based on d20, it was inspired by
action movies where you have a story that is pushed forward and skipping
the boring stuff. So I had more of from action to action type of setup,
no matter if it was underdark, on top of the world on somewhere in between.

Cool, especially if your players enjoyed it.

We did alternate who was DM, and we did play shadow run, fading suns,
AD&D (version 2 and 2.5 and bit 3 too), also some Target Games products
like DoD, Mutant Chronicles, Kult. Sure we had one who was a heavy dice
roller and slow action moments that could drag out for hours without
anything happen, just getting from A to B.

Our campaigns were different. In many ways, they were more like those survival video games (perhaps a bit less focus on crafting ;-) where
the journey was as much a part of the adventure as the actual
confrontation with the Big Evil Foozle at the end. Which was cool too;
every group has differing tastes. It's my main objection to the video,
which suggested that the solution to players not enjoying a dungeon
crawl was poor time management; I think it's broader than that. In
your example, your group was happier just to get to the big battle; in
ours, it was the journey that mattered. No amount of time-management
skills would have made dungeoneering more exciting to us.

Sure players enjoy different things, as do DM's like to lead the games
in different ways, the most important is that everyone enjoyed the
session and that the DM listens to player complaints and adjust in the
future.

Which isn't to say I completely disagreed with all of his thesis that
modern D&D relies to heavily on skills and dice-rolls... or at least
doesn't give DMs the tools and advice on how /not/ to do that. If your
game falls into the trap of "I roll a die to see if I succeed at
action X", it's going to be really hard to keep most players engaged

If I remember what it said in the AD&D v2 DM book, was that the rules
are only suggestions and not commands from a "god". So you don't have to
roll a dice for everything, you should keep the story going and make it interesting, sometimes the players need to suffer so that they can enjoy
the win in the last battle a lot more. Sure I did roll my dices far more
times than they actually meant something, just giving the illusion that something was random, but was actually part of the story I already had
made up.

and a lot of the tips in the video are telling DMs -one way or
another- to break out of that trend. Don't let your players rely
simply on their stats and skill blocks. Make them think and act it
out. If tight time management works for your group, use that.

Sure, the players need to act as their characters, but the more stats
and things the more they become distracted from roll playing and they
just keep on playing and then you can just play a RPG game on the computer.

But like I said, I never really cared for dungeons to begin with. The too-tight corridors never really let the players fully explore their capabilities. You were trapped in tiny rooms, with limited
maneuverability and options. That's not to say I saw no use for the
things; sometimes you /want/ to limit the players that way. But I
always found the more open spaces on the surface a better playground.
The dungeons were a contrast to that, but only worked if used
sparingly. At least in our campaigns.

In a campaign (not me as DM), we had characters that started to have
their own strong holds, and it was time to build some defenses against powerful monsters who was kind of after the characters, it ended up that
the players built their "dungeon" and the DM sent in the monster, it can
be a fun time for them to plan how to defeat a Beholder in a dungeon
they construct.
--
//Aho

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 00:59:37 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net>
wrote:

In a campaign (not me as DM), we had characters that started to have
their own strong holds, and it was time to build some defenses against >powerful monsters who was kind of after the characters, it ended up that
the players built their "dungeon" and the DM sent in the monster, it can
be a fun time for them to plan how to defeat a Beholder in a dungeon
they construct.

Oooh, it's "Dungeon Keeper" (a video game) on the table-top!

The idea of the player characters creating a dungeon was something
that never occured to me. Not necessarily in the way you meant, but
just as an alternative stronghold. But we tended to retire our
characters when they started getting to stronghold-level. D&D just
played better at the lower levels, we found (especially in our
campaigns, which tended to be lower-magic). The retired PCs became
'semi-NPCs' who continued to exist in the gameworld (and the players
still had some control over them) but they weren't active participants
in the adventures.

It was always fun when the players, with entirely new and often
completely unrelated characters, stumbled across some of their old
PCs. I tried not to do it too often (usually by putting the new group
in an entirely different region) but it was always memorable.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 08/02/2026 17.20, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 00:59:37 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net>
wrote:

In a campaign (not me as DM), we had characters that started to have
their own strong holds, and it was time to build some defenses against
powerful monsters who was kind of after the characters, it ended up that
the players built their "dungeon" and the DM sent in the monster, it can
be a fun time for them to plan how to defeat a Beholder in a dungeon
they construct.

Oooh, it's "Dungeon Keeper" (a video game) on the table-top!

This was far many years before the video game, but still quite fun, as
good people, the characters of course didn't force people into the
dungeon to fight "invading" high level monsters, it was the characters themselves.

we tended to retire our
characters when they started getting to stronghold-level. D&D just
played better at the lower levels, we found (especially in our
campaigns, which tended to be lower-magic). The retired PCs became 'semi-NPCs' who continued to exist in the gameworld (and the players
still had some control over them) but they weren't active participants
in the adventures.

We had some characters I had DM:ed and they were somewhere around level
14 that had been retired as I had to have a longer break from RPG, some
years later I did dust of the characters, wrote down highlights what
they been up to the last years and then handed out the characters to the players with a kind of "grand final" adventure.

Sure they became legends in that home made world, places named after
them, monsters telling stories about how their ancestors had almost been completely wiped out in this or that battle.

It was always fun when the players, with entirely new and often
completely unrelated characters, stumbled across some of their old
PCs. I tried not to do it too often (usually by putting the new group
in an entirely different region) but it was always memorable.

One DM we used to have, he was more of killing of characters, except for
one players character, we got quite pissed when all expect the favorite
player was killed of for the 3rd time in a week, that character looting
the dead, this was the time last straw and we begun to DM ourself, each weekend another person...
--
//Aho

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 2/6/2026 9:04 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Why think of an original topic when I can just leech off somebody
else's ideas? This time, I'm riffing off a video I saw on YouTube.
This video, specifically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyl73XLJWhE

* * * *

To save yourself a watch, the presenter suggests that the reason
modern tabletop gamers don't like dungeon crawls is because the
current rules lack the time management that makes them fun.

Now, I can't argue this case, because:

a) I've no idea what 'modern tabletop gamers' like, and

I don't think it'd D&D anymore.

b) I'm not familiar enough with 5E to say whether it does
or does not promote time-management in this way.

It doesn't. There really hasn't been much to it since 1e or the
'classics' (basic+) and it isn't there because almost no one likes it.

"Time managment" is exclusively how much resources you can safely hoard between encounters, an adventuring day supposed to be 6 encounters, with
a short (1 hour) rest between each 2.

Most DMs don't follow this and the game becomes too easy. My friend who
DMs does, but then it creates the 'contrived' problem.

How did you run your dungeon crawls? Was dungeoneering a major part of
your adventures?

Only in the most early days I ran, and was quickly dispensed with. If
you're playing 1e a lot of it becomes moot by low-mid level anyway.
Continual light, bags of holding, create food and water, rope trick, and
many others squirreled away in various supplements.
--
-Justisaur

|+-|+
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
-|-4'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2